
toas #00. Jol)u Ceocrctt a Emgl)!? 






REPORT 



HERALDIC CO/VLM.ITTEE 



ON THE QUESTION 



WAS JOHN LEVERETT A KNIGHT? 



[Eeprint from the New-Ens^land Historical and Genealogical Register 
for July and October, 1881.] 



•' Rank is but the guinea's stamp, 
The man's the man for a' that." 



BOSTON J 

DAVID CLAPP & SON, PRINTERS 
564 Washington Street. 
18 8 1. 



IIS^TRODUCTIO^. 



The subject of the following report, now reprinted from the New 
England Historical and Genealogical Register, if susceptible of inde- 
finite expansion, has been confined, in its present form, to the mooted 
point submitted to the Heraldic Committee for their consideration. 
They have studiously avoided whatever might impose an unwelcome 
task upon their readers, however germane to the inquiry, simply 
retaining what seemed absolutely indispensable to rendering it 
intelligible. They could not forget that the magazine is all needed 
for the material of family history, and has little space to spare for 
more general topics. The utility of their investigations, moreover, 
depended upon the accessibility in print of their cdnclusions, and 
of the reasons upon which those conclusions were founded, that 
whoever now or hereafter may care to decide for himself as to their 
weight, may have them at hand. The utmost brevity, consistent 
witTi an adequate statement of the question at issue, essential facts 
and legitimate arguments, being imperative, that has been their aim. 

In its original draught and as presented to the society the report 
was far more ambitious. It enlarged upon all such details of colonial 
history during the period that Leverett was engaged in public affairs, 
upon such prominent measures and men as invested the inquiry with 
any permanent interest. It recalled to mind much that even the most 
conversant with our early annals can hardly be expected to keep fresh 
in their remembrance, that bore on either side of the question. It 
was thought that whatever brought into view an eventful epoch not 



IV 



without influence over our existing institutions, was warranted by the 
broad statement of our late Limented friend Mr. Tuttle, when he 
proposed the inquiry, and requested that it might be referred to our 
committee. 

The occasion seemed likewise opportune to consider what would 
have been the probable effect upon our social development, if the crown 
had exercised its prerogative and bestowed upon leaders in colonial 
service such titles of honor, as that attached in this instance to the 
name of Leverett, or others of higher degree. That Charles II. 
would have gladly assimilated the American colonies to the mother 
country in this particular, if it would have strengthened his throne or 
added to his resources, or enabled him to carry out here his Irish 
policy, cannot reasonably be doubted. He would have gladly intro- 
duced feudal tenures, entails and primogeniture, and as a first step 
towards it did actually call in question the validity of every land grant 
under the charters. Could he have effected his purpose, wealth and 
political power, concentrated in a few favored families, would have 
retarded our growth and deferred our independence. Certainly for 
many more generations we might have remained in reluctant sub- 
jection to a power beyond the sea. The king happily misunderstood 
the temper of the colonists. The danger was never very great of any 
such policy succeeding, since exclusive or hereditary privileges were 
quite inconsistent with the general participation of the whole people 
in public administration. Nevertheless for a time it menaced, and 
was never more insidious or more imminent than in the dark days 
which preceded and followed the abrogation of our colonial charter. 
Fortunately, stronger men, and wiser than the King or his ad- 
visers, bafHed his unjust and impolitic schemes, and no one more 
effectively than Governor Leverett. That such projects were ever in 
contemplation, and at the very time when arose the complications 
which led to this historic doubt or historic error, seemed to justify 
some allusion to them in connection with the consideration of the main 
question. 

Largely of the same races, speaking the same language, reading 



the same books, inheriting for centuries a common history, and 
governed by the same judicial precedents and precepts ; no distinction 
is more marked between the social and political condition of the land 
of our fathers and our own, than that while they possess and cherish 
the most ancient, powerful and respectable aristocracy sanctioned by 
law that ever existed, we are all as equal and free as the well being 
and order of the community and the behests of Providence admit. 
These differences cannot be an uninteresting study. Neither our 
own history nor that of other nations can be understood witliout 
taking them into view. In genealogical investigations, some know- 
ledge of what constituted the several ranks and orders of social life, 
and what they signified in other lands and ages, is important to 
prevent mistake, and fiiUs reasonably within our particular province 
as the Heraldic Committee, that which Mr. Tuttle selected to pass 
judgment in this special case. 

Knighthood, the lowest order of such titular distinction, signified, 
under the earlier Norman monarchs, the feudal obligation of landed 
proprietors of forty pounds or more of annual rental to perform 
military service for the king. In the chivalric days of the later 
Planta"-enets, it was the incentive to deeds of noble daring or their 
reward. When the Stuarts succeeded to the throne of England, it 
was bestowed so lavishly and on such unworthy objects as to cease 
to be an honor, and Leverett had been too long at court to value it. 
It is different now. The Garter, it is true, once the guerdon of 
heroic action and able generalship, now decorates reigning sovereigns 
or the higher nobility, and the Thistle and St. Patrick are confined 
to Scotch and Irish peers. But the Bath, the Star of India and St. 
George and St. Michaels, are conferred for merit in letters or science, 
for public service, civil or military. Such certificates or badges, 
implying character, education and ability, inspire our respect, and 
serve their purpose in an Empire to be represented at other courts, 
and with dependencies to be governed on which the sun never sets. 
We do not feel the need of any such invidious distinctions here, and 
the sovereign people, the fountain of honor in America, have other 



VI 



ways of testifying their approbation of such as do them laudable 
service. 

Our present publication embraces the views of the Editor of the 
Eegister, which substantially concur with those of the Committee. 
His valuable suggestions help more completely to exhaust all that 
can be said on the subject.* 



* See note appended for present British orders of knighthood. 



WAS GOy. LEYERETT A KIN^IGHT?* 



At the monthly meeting of the New England Historic, Genea- 
logical Society, May 5, 1880, the following letter from Mr. Tuttle 
was received and read : 

Letter of Charles W. Tuttle, Ph.D. 

Boston, May 4, 1880. 
Dear Sir : I have to regret that I shall not be able to attend the 
meeting of the society to-morrow, as I intended. 

For some time I have desired to submit to the consideration of the soci- 
ety a proposition looking to a solution of the question whether John Lev- 
erett, governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony from 1673 to 1679, was 
knighted by Charles II. of England. His knighthood is frequently and 
solemnly affirmed as an historical fact in the pages of the Leverett Memo- 
rial, not excepting the title-page of that volume, as if it were unquestion- 
able. 

My impression is that this alleged act of the king never was made public 
till within fifty years past. At all events, this announcement must have 
been received with surprise by all who knew the history of the king and 
of the governor. No one was prepared to believe that Charles II. had any 
such regard for the Puritan Governor, the aider and abettor of Cromwell 
— in overthrowing the monarchy — as is implied by conferring on him 
knighthood, or that the Governor had any such regard for the Cavalier 
king and his court, as to induce him to accept it. And yet the contrary is 
urged, among other things, to establish the fact of knighthood. 

The affirmative evidence is not strong ; it consists of a single letter of 
business from Mr. Secretary Williamson to Governor Leverett, dated in 
August, 1676, wherein the latter is styled a knight in the address; and 
also a document, now missing or lost, supposed to be the royal letters patent 
conferring this distinction. Strange this letter, wherein no mention is made 
of knighthood, except as it appears to the Governor's name in the address, 

*"New England Historical and Genealogical Register" for July, 1881, pp. 172-5. 



should be preserved, and the importaut bulky Letters Patent creating him 
knight should be lost. 

This is a novel way of conferring as well as proving title to knighthood. 
As to the letter, no one who knows what a great blunderer the secretary 
was regarding American affairs and history, will attach any importance to 
that. How came the secretary, before and after, to forget that the Gov- 
ernor was a knight? If this method of proving right to a title were allow- 
able, one might easily prove, from his files of letters, a title as high as he 
might choose to lay claim, and as various as his fancy could desire. How 
often does blunder or design compliment us in a letter, with a title wholly 
inapplicable and foreign to ourselves ! 

The negative evidence is strongly against this theory of knighthood in 
1676, or any other year in the reign of Charles II. 

During my historical researches concerning the conquest of Acadia by the 
Dutch in 1674, I had occasion to observe with much care the official rela- 
tions — and I know of no other — between Charles II. and Governor Leve- 
rett the six years the latter was governor. At no time in this period was 
there anything but antagonism between them. The act of the Governor 
in the spring of 1675 in dispossessing the Dutch of Acadia, and thereby 
endangering the Peace of Westminster, was a matter for which he was under 
censure for several years afterwards at the Court of Charles II. 

In June, 1676, hardly three months before it is claimed he was knight- 
ed, he treated very curtly in Boston the bearer of a royal letter which he 
read in council, without even removing his hat, scornfully remarking at the 
end that its contents were of little consequence. All this was reported at 
Court about the time the royal letters patent are alleged to have been 
issued. 

Gov. Leverett, as chief magistrate of the colony, is only surpassed by 
the amiable, prudent and accomplished Winthrop. As a military com- 
mander he had no equal during the first, nor perhaps during the second 
charter. His administration is a conspicuous one ; and his memory has 
always been held in esteem and veneration in New England. That he 
ever held any other relations with Charles II. than those known to his 
contemporaries, none will believe who examine into the matter. 

While I, as well as many others, am satisfied that he never was knighted 
by Charles II., as alleged, there are persons who believe otherwise, and 
continue to style him a knight, thereby making confusion in our history. I 
venture to suggest that this important question be referred to the Commit- 
tee on Heraldry, with instructions to report their views at an early day. 

Faithfully yours, C. W. Tuttle. 

To the Hon. Marshall P. Wilder, Pres't 

N. E. Historic, Genealogical Society. 



Mr. Tuttle, when he wrote the preceding letter, had not seen the 
original of the official letter which he refers to, though he had made 
diligent search for it. He relied entirely on the printed copies, 
which give a false impression. It is but recently that we have as- 
certained the owner of the original document. The letter belongs 
to Leverett Saltonstall, Esq., who has loaned it to the editor of the 
Register. From it the following copy has been made by David 
Pulsifer, A.M. : 

Charles R. 

Trusty & Welbeloved, Wee greet you well. Whereas wee have been 
humbly informed by the peticon of John Wampas als White, that he was 
about six months since put into prison here for a small debt, where he hath 
since remained to his utter ruine, & that he hath a certain pai'cell of laud 
in Massachusetts bay, the which he hath held for many years, having taken 
the Oaths of Allegiance & Supremacy as our subject; and having humbly 
besought us to interpose With you, that he may bee restored to his s** lands, 
or have liberty to sell the same for his present reliefe & the payment of his 
debts, Wee taking into our gracious consideracou the miserable condition of 
the pet" have thought fitt to recornend him to you, that he may have Justice 
done him & wliat favour the matter will fairly beare. And soe Wee bid 
you farewell. Given Att our Court att Whitehall the 22''' day of August 
1676 in the 28"^ yeare of our reigne 

By his Ma"^' coriiand. Willi4mson. 



[The letter fills one page of a folio foolscap sheet, and except the signa- 
tures of Charles II. and Secretary Williamson, is in the hand writing of a 
clerk. It is addressed, in the same hand writing, on the outside of the letter 
after it was folded :] 

To Our Trusty and Welbeloved 
S'^ John Leveritt Kn* governour 
of Massachusetts bay in new 
England 

[Underneath the address is a line in another hand writing, probably a 
memorandum of the receipt of the letter by Gov. Leverett. A portion of 
the writing is obscure, but it looks like :] 

Reed y^ I'er 7. 2. jvaii i677 

[Savage (Winthrop's New England, ii. 245) reads it, " Received 2 June 
1677 ;" and the editors of the 32d volume of the Massachusetts Historical 
Collections (page 223) read it, " Received 2 Jan. 1677."]^ 



This letter has been printed twice before, namely, in 1854, in the 
Massachusetts Historical Collections, vol. xxxii. page 223 ; and in 
1856 in the Leverett Memorial, page 83 ; but in both copies the 
address is printed above the sign manual of the king, whereas in 
the original letter it is on the outside, and appears no where else. 

Last year we sent a copy of Mr. Tuttle's letter to Col. Chester, 
of London, the eminent antiquary, and desired him to ascertain 
whether there was any record of the letter in England. The follow- 
ing reply was received : 

124 South wark Park Road, 
London, S. E., England, 29 Sept. 1880. 
Dear Mr. Dean, 

I returned from the seaside last week, and have since looked into 
the matter about which you wrote on the 25th August. There was consid- 
erable difficulty in finding the document, as you gave no reference. It is in 

" Colonial Entry Books 
Plantations General 
Vol. 93. A.D. 1663-1684," 

at folio 150. It is undated, but follows a letter dated 29th March, 1676, 
and precedes one dated 14th Dec. 1676. This volume is only an Entry 
Book containing copies of letters written by Secretary Williamson. (See 
my Westminster Abbey Registers, p. 249.) 

In the margin is : 

" To S'' John Leveritt gov"" of Massachusetts." 

At the end of the letter : 

" To our Tr. &c. S' John Leveritt, Knt. gov' of Massachusetts bay in 
New England." 

The explanation I would suggest is that Williamson was notoriously a 
careless man, and that this was one of his blunders. It seems absolutely 
certain that Leverett never was knighted, or there would be evidence of the 
fact in other quarters. Sincerely yours, 

Jos. L. Chester. 



KEPOKT * 



The Committee on Heraldry, to whom was referred tlie letter of Mr. 
Tuttle in the Register for July, 1881, pp. 272-275, unanimously concur- 
ring in the opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the affirma- 
tive, have requested the chairman to draw up their report. 

We should do injustice to Mr. Tuttle and the society if we simply ad- 
mitted the force of the reasons he assigns for his conclusion that Gov. 
Leverett was never made a knight. Such honors, if exclusively within the 
royal prerogative, have always been guarded by certain requisite formali- 
ties, rites and records. Though the rules were, no doubt, far less strin- 
gent and less respected two centuries ago than at present, no mere super- 
scription on a letter upon another subject, and without the slightest refer- 
ence to any such royal intent, would even then have been considered suffi- 
ciently formal for any such purpose. No other evidence is known to exist 
in this case, and we are all of a mind, that the address of the letter can be 
explained without the assumption that Leverett was ever made a knight. 

The inquiry involves so much else that is interesting in our colonial an- 
nals, its consideration brings into review so many eventful incidents and 
historical personages important to bear in mind, would we appreciate aright 
the question or come to a just conclusion, that we ought to be greatly 
obliged to Mr. Tuttle for proposing its discussion. Diligent students of the 
past may have little to learn, but many among us are glad to improve every 
opportunity that offers to become better acquainted with what so nearly 
concerns us all. "We have consequently, before stating the evidence and ar- 
guments bearing directly upon the points at issue, ventured to allude to 
the personal and family history of Leverett, to his public services and 
relations with the king. Leverett, as well as the remarkable men with 
whom he was associated in political life, reflects glory upon our infant 
state. If moving on a less conspicuous theatre they were many of them 
quite the equals in ability and character of the statesmen at home, more 
frequently mentioned on the histoiic page. 

* New-England Historical and Genealogical Register for October, 1881, pages 345-356. 



6 

The more than twenty thousand Englishmen who escaped from civil and 
ecclesiastical thraldom under Stuart and Laud, to settle our New England 
plantations, fairly represented that better class they left behind them, which 
had recently produced for their more illustrious examples of character and 
ability, Shakspeare and Bacon, Raleigh and Sydney, and of whom were 
then in different stages and degrees of recognition or development, Eliot 
and Hampden, Hutchinson and Milton. The large number of the col- 
onists who had enjoyed the advantages of collegiate education, or whose 
printed productions testified to a varied culture, the intellectual strength and 
scholarly attainments displayed in the colonial pulpit and practical saga- 
city in colonial affairs, indicated how well the seed had been winnowed 
which planted our American harvest. In a community knit so closely 
by common wants and perils, devout disciples of the same teachers, what 
was best in the select leavened the rest, and their leaders whom they pre- 
ferred to positions of responsibility and trust, on whose sensible and con- 
scientious exercise of their power the general welfare depended, were, as 
might have been expected, honest, prudent and able. 

Winthrop, the gentleman and statesman, well expressed in his own hap- 
pily constituted nature, the earnest convictions, and sense of dependence 
upon Providence, which braved the dangers of unknown seas and shores, 
and which alone could have sustained the hearts of his associates staunch 
as they were, amidst such manifold hardships and discouragements. The 
strong-hearted Dudley, fitly compounded to confront and overcome and in- 
spirit by his dauntless courage ; Haynes, whose single year of gubernato- 
rial service was followed by larger opportunities of usefulness in a neigh- 
oring colony ; the noble and generous-minded Vane ; Bellingham, and 
Endicott, all of whom shared with Wintiirop while he lived the supreme 
magistracy, unlike as they were and much as they differed in their several 
claims to respect and confidence, reflected back the many toned shades of 
character of our puritan progenitors, who selected them for official dig- 
nity and duty. Winthrop, twelve years out of nineteen chosen to preside 
over the destinies of the infant settlement of Massachusetts, moulded and 
mirrored its prevailing characteristics during the first score of years. 

From his death to 1672, when Leverett succeeded to the office, Endicott 
for fourteen years, Dudley for one, and Bellingham for nearly nine, alter- 
nately bore sway. Under Cromwell and the Protectorate, religious fervor, 
if intense and glowing as before, was not the more forbearing, and schis- 



jnatics were even more cruelly persecuted. Nor did intolerance assume any 
milder or more cheering form for a long period after the restoration, for 
the saturnalia which ran riot in England, at deliverance from gloomy and 
unnatural asceticism, provoked simply disgust in a people whose respect for 
moral law was little tinctured with mercy. This reign of bigoti'y, to use 
the words of Savage, " between the mild wisdom of Wiuthrop and the 
tolerant dignity of Leverett, came to an end when the latter as acting 
governor " succeeded Bellingham, who died at the age of four score in office 
in 1G72. 

And who was Leverett, and what had he done to be selected for this re- 
sponsible position ? He had come to Boston, still in the freshness of youth, 
with his father in 1633. He had been in public employments under five 
of his seven predecessors, indeed under all except Haynes and Vane, and 
this long preamble and much that follows that might otherwise seem out of 
place, will serve to keep in mind the events and dates which might be refer- 
red to in arguing the probability or improbability of his haviug, at any 
period of his life, been knighted. 

His father Thomas, 1585-1650, of a family for many centuries honora- 
bly established in Lincolnshire, married in 1610 Ann Fisher, in St. Bo- 
tolphs in Boston, of which parish John Cotton became vicar two years 
later. For twenty years we are told that excellent pastor, though suspect- 
ed of disobedience to ecclesiastical domination in doctrine and observance, 
retained liis incumbency through the influence of the elder Leverett with 
officials of the ecclesiastical courts, one of the proctors of which was his 
friend. When later the uncompromising conscientiousness of the puritan 
divine provoked the ill will of a parishioner, who denounced him to the 
authorities for administering the sacrament to communicants standing in- 
stead of kneeling, Leverett again exerted his influence at court to avert the 
danger. But Lord Dorset, not a very creditable personage, informed Mr. 
Cotton that if he had been guilty of drunkenness, or yet much graver fault, 
he might have obtained his pardon, but as he was guilty of puritanism 
and nonconformity, his crime was unpardonable, and therefore he advised 
him to flee for his safety. Cotton had already been invited to become the 
colleague of John Wilson in the new plantation on Massachusetts Bay, and 
leaving his beautiful church and the home so long endeared to him, with 
many friends from the neighborhood, he came to America in 1633. Tho- 
mas Leverett, resigning his office as alderman of Boston, accompanied his 



8 

pastor, Edmund Quiucy, Edward Hutchinson the elder, and others of note, 
into exile. Not long before he had received with Mr. Beauchamp, kins- 
man of the Earl of Warwick, one of the company, a grant from the Ply- 
mouth Council of the Muscongus patent in Maine of " ten leagues square." 
It proved of no pecuniary advantage either to himself or his descendants 
for a century and a half, and then shorn of its grand proportions by trespass- 
ers and grants made from time to time to protect the rest, very little was left 
for even those who then indirectly represented the original proprietors, 
most of it having vested in the heirs of Brigadier Waldo when it became 
of any value. 

If not destined to realize his expectations of territorial aggrandizement, 
the alderman and patentee was spared the hardships and solicitudes of 
frontier life. He established himself in Boston, and here in honor and use- 
fulness spent the remainder of his days. His residence lay next east of the 
first meeting-house, near the present corner of State and Congress Streets. 
His grounds in the rear adjoined Wiuthrop's, whose death and his own 
occurred almost within the same twelve-month. Not far to the west, on 
what is now Pemberton Square, then Sentry Hill, dwelt his friend and 
pastor Mr. Cotton. A ruling elder of the church, appointed in 1635, with 
Henry Vane and Thomas Oliver to settle all disputes, one of the leaders 
in the cause of education in establishing the first free school, for the six 
earliest years recording the municipal proceedings in which he took part 
as selectman, his experiences as alderman in the borough town of old 
Boston, were curiously and variously brought to bear in organizing public 
affairs in the new. 

His son John, born in 1616, came with his father to America. From 
what is known of him later, his education had not been neglected. Soon 
after his marriage in 1639 with Hannah Hudson, he accompanied Edward 
Hutchinson, son of Ann, on a mission to Miantonomo, sachem of the Narra- 
gansetts, to ensure peace, which proved successful. He went in 1644 to 
England with Robert Sedgwick, who having belonged to the artillery com- 
pany in Loudon, had formed our own upon its model. Trained to arms 
under so accomplished a master, Leverett was prepared to take part in the 
turmoil that was then desolating the home country with fraternal strife. 
Both Sedgwick and himself took up arms for the parliament, Leverett hav- 
ing a command in Rainsborrow's cavalry regiment, in which service he gained 
experience and some I'enowu. The loss of his wife July 7, 1646, three 



months after the birth of his fourth child John, led the following year to 
his marriage with Sarah Sedgwick, and three years later he lost his 
father. 

The next year at the age of thirty-five began his legislative career. He 
was elected in 1651-52 one of the two representatives of Boston, part of the 
time presiding as Speaker. The favorable impression he made upon his as- 
sociates in the house, maybe surmised from the positions of trust with which 
they honoi'ed him. He was sent commissioner to reduce Maine to the 
jurisdiction of Massachusetts, and soon after employed to repress Gov. Stuy- 
vesant, whose projected attack on the English settlements had become 
known to Cromwell. A force of five hvmdred men was raised for the pur- 
pose, but as they were embarking peace contracted between the two bellig- 
erents left them at liberty for some other enterprise, and Sedgwick and 
Leverett, at their great expense and after hard fighting, took possession 
for England of all the French possessions between the Kennebec and St. 
Lawrence. The country was restored by the treaty of Breda in 1GG4 to 
the French crown, much to the disadvantage of the English colonies, prov- 
ing for a century longer a bone of contention. 

While thus employed Leverett was selected to represent the colony in 
England, and when these and other tasks assigned him permitted, went 
over and remained six years. Upon his return in 1662, he was elected 
Major General of the colonial forces, and again in the legislature presided 
as Speaker, taking an active part in the debates and proceedings. F'or the 
next six years he had a seat in the Council, and after serving two years as 
deputy governor by general consent he succeeded the aged Bellingham, 
and was reelected as long as he lived without opposition. His own death 
in 1679 made way for Bradstreet, the last of our governors under the colo- 
nial charter. 

Leverett's administration fell on troubled times. Giving shelter to Goffe 
and Whalley had vexed the king, who eager for money to feed his extrava- 
gances and prodigality to worthless favorites, wished to raise a revenue 
from the colonies. The persecution of the Quakers, the coining of money, 
levy of imposts and of taxes on minors and strangers, the oath of allegi- 
ance exacted to the colony, though charges somewhat stale, and perhaps 
mere pretexts used to vacate the charter in 1685, were constant subjects 
of complaint against the colonial government. There were other offences, 
such as the attack on the Acadian forts and the Dutch, disturbing the 



10 

friendly relations with France, which created prejudice at court. The colo- 
ny, if it had not helped to stir up the great rebellion, had openly taken 
sides with the parliament. It was still regarded as of doubtful allegiance^ 
and its independent temper alarmed prerogative. King Philip possibly 
chose the opportunity which he did, from an impression that no great efforts 
would be made by Charles to defend his rebel dependency. All the docu- 
ments preserved by the British government go to show that he sent Ran- 
dolph here when he felt we were weakest, and Palfrey enlarges upon this 
point. We have diligently examined the reports of the various depart- 
ments, which prove conclusively that Palfrey is correct, and agree with Mr. 
Tuttle's idea that the king did not favor us, or John Leverett as our represen- 
tative. The condition of affairs requiring ability of the best and consum- 
mate tact for their guidance, Leverett, from his intimate acquaintance with 
the public men here and at court, his familiarity with affairs civil and 
military, the confidence he inspired by his honesty of purpose, dignified 
demeanor and pleasant ways, proved equal to the emergency. He wielded 
a ready pen ; an address of his to the king elicited much commendation, 
as did also his correspondence, proclamations and other public documents. 
While defending firmly and with excellent judgment the chartered rights 
of the colony, his loyalty to the crown, expressed without reserve, and at 
the same time without taint of subserviency, skilfully averted controversies 
at critical moments which might have put those rights in jeopardy. 

His military career in the parliamentary army in 1G44, and his well 
known friendly relations with Cromwell, his independent course in the ex- 
ercise of his official functions since his return to America in 1662, his dis- 
possession of the Dutch of their settlements in Acadia in 1674 and 1675, 
may be considered powerful, if not conclusive arguments against the pro- 
bability of his ever having received the distinction of knighthood. But 
whoever is fiimiliar with that period, or many another in England's history 
under Tudor and Plantagenet, or with the annals of our race in other lands 
and ages, must recall numerous instances where invaluable services to crown 
or country remained without requital, and disaffection and demerit were as 
often quite forgotten where there was power to hurt or help, to be pur- 
chased by rank or gift. 

There were, however, so many more honorable motives, creditable to 
them both, which might have actuated the king to knight Leverett, that it 
is fair to assume, were the conferring of this dignity a matter of serious 



11 

doubt, that the honor, whether conferred or tendered, or only contemplated, 
was intended as an appropriate acknowledgment of olRcial worth or dis- 
tinguished service. Sir William Berkeley, down to 1G77 governor of Vir- 
ginia, had already been knighted when he went there in 1641 ; and like 
honor was later confen-ed upon Pliips, for recovering treasure, some years 
before his appointment as governor under the provincial charter. 

It might be further urged in support of the theory that Leverett was ac- 
tually knighted, that to have bestowed upon one thus eminent and influen- 
tial, the representative of the crown in the colony, what honor there might 
be in knighthood, consisted with policy. The only known evidence, however, 
that it was so conferred is the letter, given in full iu the number of the 
Register above referred to, addressed by the king " to our trusty and 
well-beloved. Sir John Leverett knight governor of Massachusetts Bay in 
New England," in behalf of Wampas* an Indian chief imprisoned for debt 
in London, requesting that he might be restored to lands in Massachusetts 
of which he had been deprived. It is dated the 22d of August, 1676. The 
Indian war had then just ended in victory in some degree, owing to the 
wise measures of the governor, aided by Gookin, Winslow, Church and 
Appletou. Such valuable services well merited royal acknowledgment. 
Leverett had besides a claim on the national treasury for about four thou- 
sand pounds for expenditures in wresting from France the forts in Aca- 
dia. The Stuarts were ever more willing to draw freely from their foun- 
tain of honor titular distinctions to acquit their obligations whether for 
money disbursed or services rendered, than from their purse. 

It would be difficult to believe that "Williamson should have ordered this 
superscription by mistake, or that any one of his subordinates, without 
some specific direction, could have written it, were it not that he was a no- 
toriously careless man. The king's sign manual to the letter being on the 
inside page, while the address, added later, was on the outside, there seems 
a strong presumption that he never saw it. He was as heedless as his sec- 

* John "Wampas was a petty sagamore of the Nipmucks. He conveyed a portion of his 
territory to settlers near the Connecticut line, reserving four miles square bounded on Men- 
don. His mother had possessions in Boston, part of which he inherited, and he himself 
owned two acres in the hay-fields there, l)esidesan estate on wliich he resided, part of the 
site of St. Paul's Church, 'between Winter Street and Temple Place. It bounded west on 
the Common and east on Baker thirtv-two feet, by Hudson Leverett, son of the governor, 
on the north, and by John Cross on the south, two hundred and ten. The property is now 
of great pecuniary value, and is one of our busiest centres of traffic; and two centuries ago 
must have been one of the pleasantest places of abode. Wampas is described in one of his 
conveyances as a seaman, no grade, if any he had, being specified. — Suff. Deeds, L. 5, 490; 
5, 541; 8, 421; 10, 111 ; 16, 89. The deed of Wampas, 10, 111, June 2, 1677, contirms a 
conveyance of land near the training-field in Boston, which his wife Ann had made over to 
Joshua Hews and others. Probably the chief was then here, and his debt had been paid 
by Leverett in some other way. 

3 



12 

retary. Lord Rochester described him as " unthinking Charles ruled by 
unthinking thee." Halifax said unthinkingness was one of his characteris- 
tics. Burnett completes the picture by writing, " He would sign papers 
without inquiring what they were about." The Duke of Buckingham said 
of the king and his brother, " The King could see things if he would, and 
the Duke if he could." 

The letter seems to have long escaped attention. The first to mention it 
in print was Mr. Savage, who in his edition of Winthrop's Journal, note on 
page 245, vol. ii., pub. 1826, says in relation to Leverett : 

" So much is generally known of this distinguished man, afterwards governor of 
Massachusetts, that I would willingly have permitted his name to pass without a 
note, had not a fact come to my knowledge, ofwhick no mention is to be found in 
any 2)1 ace, and which was probably concealed by design. An original letter, ' given 
atour court at Whitehall the 22nd day of August, 1676, in the 28th year of our 
reign,' with the royal sign-manual and the royal seal appendant, signed by Secre- 
tary Williamson by his majesty's command, is preserved by one of the descendants, 
addressed to our trusty and well-beloved Sir John Leverett, Knight, Governor of 
Massachusetts-Bay, in New England.' Whether this honor of knighthood were 
kept secret by the puritan because he doubted of the stability of the government at 
home, from which it emanated, or because he was too nearly advanced to the other 
world to regard the vanities of this, or feared its publicity might render him less 
acceptable to his constituents, by whose suffrages he was annually elected, is per- 
haps not unworthy of conjecture. The letter is marked, ' received 2nd June, 1677,' 
of course after the election, and the next year a different person was chosen. ^^ 

The dignified character which the appendant seal gave to letters-patent 
and open documents of importance is wholly wanting in this. 

Mr. Savage was usually careful, but in this instance his evident delight 
and surprise at what he supposed was a discovery of knighthood conferred 
upon the Governor, appeared to have led his thoughts away from the paper 
before him and even the history of the time, while he conjectured as to the 
Governor's reasons for keeping such a matter secret, and he does injustice 
to Governor Leverett in the imaginary motives for his secrecy, by saying 
he feared its publicity might render him less acceptable to his constituents, 
by whose suffrages he was annually elected ; this, Mr. Savage imagines, 
may have caused the Governor to lose his position the next year, as this re- 
mark indicates: "The letter is marked 'received 2nd June, 1677,' of 
course after the election, and the next year a different person was chosen." It 
would also imply that the secret was discovered before the next election. 

Thirty-five years afterward Mr. Savage condensed his long note into the 
following sentence : " In August, 1676, the King knighted him by a special 
grant, and he had sense enough to keep the letter secret for his descendents."* 

Meanwhile, in the British Museum he found Harleian MSS. 5801 and 

* Gen. Diet., article Leverett. 



13 

5802, inscribed : " A Catalogue of Knights made, from the first year King 
Charles the II during all his reign, those of King James and King William 
and Mary, with their pedigrees collected by Peter Le Neve Rouge Croix 
Pursuivant," 1G96. For this catalogue Le Neve was so careful to obtain the 
name and date of each knight's creation in order to make a list of prece- 
dence, that he entered all he found recorded, whether the fees had been 
paid or not. Mr. George W. Marshall, who edited the publication of this 
catalogue for the Harleian Society, when appealed to as to the probability 
of the Governor's having been made a knight by patent of the king, states 
in reply, " I don't know of an instance of his having done so. I think the 
presumption strongly against Gov. Leverett having been knighted." Col. 
Chester's opinion upon the subject, that it seems certain that Leverett was 
never knighted, has already appeared in the Register for July. 

To another inquiry at the British Museum, the following answer was 
received : • 

7 December, 1880. 
There is no mention of knighthood of Sir John Leverett in Harl. MSS. 5801, nor 
is his name to be found in the Catalogue of Knights, 1690-1700, compiled by Fran- 
cis Towusend, London, 1833. ... E. Maunde Thompson. 

Pishey Thompson, in his history of Boston, p. 429, wrote that Leverett 
was knighted by Charles II. at the time of his restoration. Thompson had 
followed Savage, and is disproved by the fact that Leverett, in all the doc- 
uments of that period, in the various committee meetings to which he was 
summoned, had only the title of Captain. 

When the king put his hand to the license allowing Leverett to return 

in April, 1662, he would have had him styled knight if he had recently 

knighted him ; but it reads 

" License to Capt. John Leverett to go peaceably to his habitation in N. E. with 
his wife and children and servants in the Ship Society, John Peirse, Commander, 
WE being satisfied of the loyalty of the said John Leverett, particularly demon- 
strated by his forwardness in proclaiming Ourself in the Said New England," 
&c. &c. 

The only plausibility to the theory of asserting that knighthood was 
granted to him at that time, consisted in the fact that one of the best jokes 
of the period was that " His Majesty, having not hitherto found enough in 
honours and offices to satisfy his enemies, expects his loyal friends will stay 
till he be more able ; nevertheless, some unhappy wit, amongst other que- 
ries, scattered in a paper in the Privy Chamber, made one, whether it were 
not fit His Majesty should pass an Act of Indemnity for Ms enemies, and 
Oblivion for his friends."* 

* Papers of the Duke of Sutherland. 



14 

Weighing the probabilities, for that is all that is left us, we must not over- 
look the well known scene alluded to by Mr. Tuttle, in which Randolph 
played so discreditable a part. This turbulent and overbearing messenger 
from the king had arrived out in June, and when he delivered his official 
letters of complaint of infraction of the acts of navigation, and on other 
grounds, his manner, arrogant and disrespectful, gave offence. Leverett, 
indignant at this discourtesy to his council, to testify his displeasure kept 
his hat ujion his head, and speedily dismissed him. An answer thanking 
the king for his gracious letter was, however, forthwith prepared and des- 
patched by a vessel then in port ready to sail. It was not shown to Ran- 
dolph, who was, however, invited to send despatches by the same ship if he 
pleased. 

The next day, in a private interview, Randolph enforcing in strong phrase 
his objections against the colonial administration and violation of the acts 
of trade, Leverett boldly asserted the rights of the colony, and that his Ma- 
jesty ought not to retrench but enlarge them, inasmuch as upon their own 
charge and without contribution from the crown they had made so large a 
plantation in the wilderness. Much else was said, probably on both sides, 
to provoke, and the Governor told Randolph that he regarded him not as 
the representative of the king, but of Mr. Mason. Charles was at that time 
seeking to purchase the Gorges and Mason claims in Maine and New 
Hampshire for his son the Duke of Monmouth, a purchase which, as re- 
garded Maine, Massachusetts had also in view, and not long after effected 
for £1200. Randolph's reports home for the next few weeks, it may be 
urged, may have jchanged the king's mind as to the knighthood, if he had 
ever thought of it. It may further be urged that the courteous letter of 
June 14th, with tidings of Canouchet's capture and death, may have 
reached its destination, as the season was favorable for quick passages, before 
the letter of August 22d was written, and before Randolph's account of what 
had occurred to arouse displeasure had arrived. But it is clear that if all that 
had taken place in Boston, exaggerated by Randolph, was known to the 
king, who had many an old rankle against him besides, he would not have 
knighted Leverett. 

All of the committee are not of a mind as to the possibility of a change 
of intention on the part of the king. Some of us think Randolph's reports 
home, dated June 17th, 1G7G, must have reached London in less than sixty 
days, and been known to the king when the letter of August 22 was writ- 



15 

ten. No circumstances have come to our knowledge to settle this point 
beyond controversy. But passages at that season were often protracted, 
and sixty days was nftt unprecedented. 

The letter from the king reached Leverett, according to the memorandum 
on the back, possibly as early as Jan. 2, 1677.* It may have been delay- 
ed in its departure, or long on its way, as opportunities direct to Boston 
were not very frequent ; but it is known that Wampas, June 2, 1G77, con- 
firmed his wife's conveyance to Hews of the estate near the training field.f 

Another circumstance pointing strongly against the probability of Leve- 
rett's having been knighted, is derived from Sewall's Diary. Sewall loved 
titles, and in his diary as late as Oct, 18, 1687, after the arrival of Lady 
Andros, he referred to the news of Phips having been knighted, whose 
wife became Lady Phips, then he writes, " so have two ladies in town." 
He always styled Gov. Leverett's widow as Madam Leverett. This ajjpears 
to i^rove that Mr. Savage was mistaken in supposing that a knowledge of 
the Governor's knighthood had ruined his political prospects ; in fact Sew- 
all would not have allowed such a matter to escape mention in his diary. 

By the colonial records it appears that at a general court for elections, 
held at Boston 23d of May, 1677, John Leverett, Esq., was chosen gover- 
nor for the year ensuing, and took his oath in open court ; and in 1678, and 
again in 1679, in which year he died in office. Mr. Savage made his mistakes, 
but was generally careful to avoid them. His faith that Leverett was suf- 
ficiently knighted may have been weakened, but never abandoned. Drake, 
History of Boston, p. 289, 1856, states that Leverett was created, for his 
services in the parliamentary army in 1645, a knight and a baronet, but 
kept his title to himself, making no display of these honors. Pishey Thomp- 
son, in his History of Old Boston in England, before referred to, says that 

* Mr. Savage gave the date indicating its reception, 2 June, 1677 ; tlie Massacliusetts 
Historical Society printed it as 2 January, 1677 ; tlie endorsement is puzzling, lieing written 
in a cramped style with a great confusion of letters, characters representing contractions, 
and both Arabic and Roman notation; it may be " Recyslro7 2 jvan 1677," which may 
mean, " Received this letter 7th day, 2d month April— 1th year (of Leverett's adminis- 
tration) 1677." 

It will l)e observed that April is the earliest of the three dates which the endorsement 
may be deciphered to mean, and that January, 1677, 0. S., would be some seven months 
later than June, which would break the force of Mr. Tuttle's argument against Mr. Sav- 
age's supposition that the date of its reception was the month last named. It is quite possi- 
ble that the letter may not have been forwarded for some time after it was written ; or, again, 
that the Governor may have retained it some time before passing it over to Secretary 
Rawson for use before "the council, whose records, in their executive capacity after the year 
1657, arc, unfortunately, not extant. 

t The suggestion that the letter was entrusted to Wampas himself, whom it exclusively 
concerned, and that the delay in reaching its destination was occasioned by his not return- 
ing at once to America after receiving it into his keeping, was accepted liy the committee as 
part of their report, l^ut omitted in the Register through inadvertence. As one possible ex- 
planation of what appeared obscure or enigmatical, as regards the memoraudum, it should 
be mentioned. 



16 

he was knighted by Charles the Second when he came to England at the 
restoration and was appointed an advocate of the colony, but that he never 
made use of his title, but concealed his knighthood from the public. These 
statements seem to be founded on conjectures to explain the address on the 
letter from the king ; but if, as would seem, not founded on any other ground 
for belief, are not to be relied on as authorities. 

Upon the whole, the committee are of opinion, that the supposition that 
Governor Leverett was ever knighted is not established by any evidence 
known to the committee. There is nothing even plausible which can be 
found to give color to such a claim, and the evidence that the committee 
have obtained is totally against it. 

In closing our report we should fail in due respect to the memory of the 
propounder of this interesting problem, if we passed without notice the 
event which has deprived the society of one of its most beloved members. 
Not without intimation that his life was seriously imperilled by disease, 
yet indulging the hope that he might long be spared to the historical 
brotherhood to complete the many important researches in which he was 
engaged, he has been taken away in the midst of his labors, in early 
manhood. His untiring industry, shrewd insight and comprehensive fami- 
liarity with all periods of New England history, his conscientious fidelity to 
historic truth and freedom from bias, gave promise of many precious con- 
tributions to historical literature, of an honored career which would have 
added to the laurels he had justly gained. Much as he had won of estab- 
lished reputation, and many and valued as were his publications, the graces 
of his character, his amiable disposition, generosity in imparting informa- 
tion, readiness to forego his own to further his associates in their historical 
projects, gave him an enviable place in their esteem and affection. 

In passing such judgment as the circumstances admit upon what is not 
easy to explain in the question submitted, we recognize the kindly thought 
which called the attention of the society to an interesting period in our colo- 
nial development, less familiar than it deserves to be to students of our 

New England history. 

Thomas C. Amory, 
Augustus T. Perkins, 
Abner C. Goodell, Jr. 
W. L. Jeffries, 
John Coffin Jones Brown. 



17 



REMARKS BY THE EDITOR OF THE REGISTER. 



The importance of this inquiry is obvious to all who appreciate accurate 
history. Gov. Leverett was a man of such public consequence in our early 
history that everything concerning his name and titles ought to rest on a 
sure foundation. 

The story that he was a knight seems to have been first given to the 
public, in the year 1826, by the late Hon. James Savage, LL.D., in a foot- 
note to his edition of Winthrop's New England, vol. ii. p. 245, which note 
is quoted in part in the preceding report. I have not found the story in 
print or manuscript before this date ; and Mr. Savage himself states that 
he had found no previous mention of it. While editing Winthrop he was 
shown the letter referred to by the late Mr. Tuttle,* dated Aug. 22, 1676, 
in which Leverett is addressed as a knight. This letter was then owned 
by the Hon. Leverett Saltonstall, of Salem, Mass., who died in 1815. It 
now belongs to his sou Leverett Saltonstall, Esq., of Boston, by whose per- 
mission it was printed in the last number of the Register. Mr. Savage 
drew, from the fact that Leverett was addressed as " Sir " and " Knight " 
on a letter bearing the autograph of his sovereign, the inference that he 
was really a knight. He gives no other evidence, and he seems not to 
have stopped to inquire whether this address might not be, as it probably 
was, a blunder. If, however, he had known, what Mr. Tuttle discovered, 
that the titles on the address of this solitary letter, which address there is 
no reason to think the king ever saw, were not repeated in subsequent let- 
ters from the same source, I think I know him well enough to assert that 
he would have come to the same conclusion as Mr. Tuttle ; and so would 
the best informed of those who have repeated the story. 

Twenty-seven years later, in 1853, a revised edition of Winthrop's New 
England was issued. In the mean time, the editor, Mr. Savage, had visited 
England and had made extensive researches concerning American history 

* Charles Wesley Tuttle, A.M., Ph.D., died in Boston, Saturday night, July 16, 1881, 
aged 51. The society loses in him an honored and efficient member, the Register a learned 
and able contributor, and the editor a warm friend, I heartily join in the words of 
praise and regret at the close of the report of the Committee on Heraldry. 



18 

and genealogy there as well as in this country. Had he found a single fact 
confirmatory of the inference which he drew from Williamson's letter, can 
there be a doubt that when he came to revise his note for the second edition, 
he would have given the new evidence ? But though he makes important 
changes in this and other notes, he adds no evidence on this point. 

Zachariah Whitman in 1842 (Hist. Anc. and Hon. Ar. Co. p. 93), the 
Hon. Nathaniel R. ShurtlefF, M.D., in 1850 (Register, iv. p. 93), Samuel 
G. Drake, A.M., in 1853 (Hist. Boston, Mass., p. 289), Pishey Thompson, 
in 185G (Hist. Boston, Eng., p. 429), and others, repeat the story; but none 
of these writers furnish additional evidence. Bancroft and Palfrey are 
silent on the subject. Mr. Drake places the knighting in the time of the 
commonwealth, and furnishes the Rev. Mr. Leverett (Leverett Memorial, 
p. 81) with his reason, namely, that he " cannot understand how one who 
was certainly opposed to the government of Charles H. should have been 
so much a favorite as to be knighted by him." 

In 1856, the late Rev. Charles E. Leverett, A.M., of McPhersonville, 
S. C, published his " Leverett Memorial." On the title-page Gov. Leverett 
is styled " Sir John Leverett, Knt.," and this has already led many people to 
think his right to the title proved. In this book, referring to the knight- 
hood of his ancestor. Gov. Leverett, the author states : " The letter of 
creation, or a copy, we do not know which, is, or was, as we are informed by 
a son of the late John Leverett, Esq., of Windsor [Ct.], among his father's 
papers." Here is the first reference to letters of creation. As no copy of 
this letter has been produced, it ought to have little weight. It is possible, 
and we think it highly probable, that the document in the possession of 
Mr. Leverett of Windsor was a copy of the letter of Aug 22, 1676, which 
letter, by the way, the Rev. Mr. Leverett thinks " unimportant in itself " 
as evidence. People who knew little of the mode of creating a knight 
may have supposed that the mere addressing a person in writing as a 
knight, in a document bearing his sovereign's signature, would make him 
one ; and so they may have called this document a " letter of creation." 

In 1861 the third volume of Mr. Savage's Genealogical Dictionary of 
New England was published. In it he repeats the statement that Leve- 
rett was knighted, but adds, " by a special grant." Whether Mr. Savage 
gave credit to the statement quoted in the Leverett Memorial about a " let- 
ter of creation," or reasoned that since Leverett left England in 1662, and 
did not return, he could not after that date have been made a knight by 



19 

Charles II. in person, I will not attempt to decide. Letters patent of 
knighthood, however, were not common if in use at that time ; and George 
W. Marshall, LL.D., F.S.A., of London, England, editor of "The Gene- 
alogist," who was entrusted by the Harleian Society with editing their 
edition of " Le Neve's Knights," writes me that he knows no instance of 
knighting by patent by Charles II. 

Neither Hubbard, Mather nor Hutchinson mention or allude to the 
knighting of Leverett. These writers, as well as Sewall, referred to in the 
report, were in a position to have met with the story had it been be- 
lieved by the family. The letter of Williamson, if known to the Gover- 
nor's relatives, was probably known to be wrongly addressed. At least 
they made no parade of the document. Other writers before Savage are 
as silent on this subject as those we have named. 

No person in New England was less in sympathy with Charles II. 
than Leverett, nor was there any one here with whom that monarch was 
less in sympathy. At the time of the alleged knighting, this antagonism, as 
stated in Mr. Tattle's letter, was at its height. The confidential relations 
of Edward Randolph with the English government gave him a know- 
ledge of all the transactions between Charles II. and the colony of Mas- 
sachusetts. If the knighthood had been conferred, or even, as it has been 
suggested, contemplated, Randolph would have known it ; and some allu- 
sion would be found in his voluminous correspondence with the home 
government, of which Mr. Tuttle had a copy. Particularly would this be 
so if the honor was slighted by Leverett. But no allusion to the matter, 
Mr. Tuttle informed me a few weeks before his death, is found in the cor- 
respondence. 

Both Col. Chester and Mr. Marshall write me that they do not find the 
name of Leverett in any list of knights, and the testimony of Mr, Amory's 
correspondent, Mr. Thompson, is to the same effect. The names of all the 
New England men who are known to have been knighted are found in 
the printed lists, but not Leverett's. 

The only evidence produced in favor of the story is, that Leverett is ad- 
dressed as " Sir " and " Knight," on the letter of 1676, and that his grand- 
son named a son Knight. These are facts. All the rest are surmises or asser- 
tions by people who lived from a century and a half to two centuries after the 
alleged knighting is said to have taken place. It is quite as likely that the 
christian name Knight was given for a relative or friend by the surname 



20 

Knight ; but, if not, it proves little. The negative evidence on the ques- 
tion submitted is unusually abundant. 

It is surprising that a story with so little foundation should have passed 
unchallenged so long. Mr. Drake, it is true, long ago expressed a doubt 
whether Charles II. would be likely to confer the honor. But if, as he 
suggested, Cromwell knighted Leverett, what was there to prevent the fact 
from being made public at the time ? Leverett's name occurs frequently 
in Sainsbury's Calendars of Colonial State Papers, during the common- 
wealth, as well as subsequently, but he is never called Sir John. This evi- 
dence, however, was not accessible when Mr. Drake wrote. 

The only solution of the problem submitted to the Committee on Heral- 
dry that is free from difficulty is the one suggested by Mr. Tuttle and con- 
curred in by Col. Chester, that the address was an error of Secretary Wil- 
liamson or his clerk. It is not necessary to prove that the person who 
made the mistake was a careless man, for less excusable blunders, made 
by the most careful of men, can be cited. It is a fact however that 
Williamson was notoriously ill informed and careless. On Mr. Tuttle's 
theory everything is plain, on any other there are numberless difficulties in 
the way, a few only of which have been alluded to. 



21 



KOTE. 



We append a list of the Britisli orders of Knighthood. 

Garter — 

Reigning sovereigns and princes, 20 
British subjects, 30 

50 

Thistle of Scotland — 30 

St. Patrick of Ireland — ^ 25 

Bath — 

Military : 

Grand cross, 50 

Knight commanders, 90 140 



Companions without title, 602 

Civil : 

Grand cross, 22 

Knight commanders, 78 100 

Companions, vpithout title, 240 

Star of India — 

Knight's grand commanders, 42 

Knight commanders, 73 115 



Companions without title, 140 

St. Michaels and St. George — 

Knight's grand cross, 35 

Knight commanders, 115 150 

Companions, 180 



1162 610 

The order of the Indian Empire, Jan. 1, 1878, numbering 112 companions 
(25 ex officio), can hardly be regarded as an order of knighthood. Neither 
can the Imperial order of the Crown of India, instituted at the same time, 
numbering 42 ladies, both including many Indian dignitaries ; nor the royal 
order of Victoria and Albert, for ladies exclusively, 1862, 4, 5, 1880, in four 
classes, the two last of British subjects. Possibly the sixth, or British Langue 
of the sovereign order of Saint John of Jerusalem, instituted in Palestine, 
A.D. 1118, revised in 1834 under powers derived from the continental 



22 

leagues, should be mentioned as in part an existing British order. Its roll 
consists of Knights Grand Cross, Knights Commanders, and Chevaliers. 

Of the 610 Knights and 1162 Companions, more than two hundred are 
foreign potentates or princes, Hindoo rajahs and other officials or dignita- 
ries of India or of the other dependencies of the British Empire, several of 
the orders having been expressly instituted to conciliate a more friendly 
feeling in them to the crown. No such policy was pursued or attempted here, 
perhaps from the conviction that it would have proved of no avail. In the 
sixteenth century it was tested in Ireland with indifferent success. Loyal 
chieftains were created earls, or barons, or knights. Jealousies and ani- 
mosities thus engendered divided, and weakened, and facilitated subjection. 
Yet its main object, to reconcile the people to English rule, remained unac- 
complished. When the Stuarts succeeded to the British throne, James I., 
on his progress to his new capital, knighted nearly two hundred of 
various pretentions, without discrimination; and as many as a thousand 
during his reign. Knighthood thus ceased to be a distinction. His grand- 
son Charles II. conferred the intended honor upon such numbers of un- 
worthy men as placed it beneath the aspiration of all who respected them- 
selves. He endeavored to raise a revenue by reviving an ancient feudal 
rule, that all landholders of certain amounts of rental should apply for it 
and pay fees, or else fines. But the parliament interfered, and abolished 
this, as it also did away with many other feudal exactions and conditions 
which had outlived in the law, their purpose or observance. 

During all this period, no systematic method of recording the exercise of 
;the royal prerogative in conferring knighthood existed, but in the reign of 
George II. abuses and question led to reform. The usual precautions are 
now taken to guard against misapprehension and preserve evidence of 
what has again become an honor, as in the days of the crusades, of Cressy 
and Agiucourt, of Chandos and Sydney ; and which moreover now recognizes 
honorable achievement in civil service, in literary pursuits, science and art, 
or professional walks, equally with prowess and conduct in the field. 



4' 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

i!ll Kill nil nil 



014 068 978 6 ^ 



